Apple releases new iMac with 5k display and Haswell-based Mac mini

[Arthur]

About time!

 

Apple updates desktop iMac line with “5k” Retina displays

One of the big "tentpole" announcements from Apple’s event this morning was the long-awaited arrival of iMacs with "retina" displays. The flagship 27-inch iMac form factor has been updated with a high-resolution, high-DPI screen, and it's now known as the "iMac with Retina Display." It runs at a resolution of 5120x2880.

 

The updated iMac with Retina Display keeps the same external form factor as the existing iMacs, so externally, things are unchanged. However, the new internals include an updated LED backlight, an updated oxide TFT display panel, and an updated timing controller to push around the display's 14.7 million pixels. (Source)

 

 

Mac mini gets a refresh with Haswell processors, $100 price drop

Apple announced a new generation of its tiny Mac mini desktop computer today at an event in Cupertino, California. The new version includes a Haswell CPU and PCI-e flash-based storage, among other features.

 

The 4th-gen Intel processors will have Intel Iris and HD 5000 GPUs, 802.11ac Wi-Fi, and two Thunderbolt 2 ports. Apple referred to the Mac mini as "the world's most energy efficient desktop."

 

The company has not updated the Mac mini since late 2012, when it added USB 3.0 ports. The new machines will retain the design of the 2012 model.

 

The new Mac minis start at $499, down $100 from the previous starting price point. (Source)

 

[sister_annex]

oooohhhhhh shiny!!!

[Quackers]

More impressed that an iPad Mini 1 with Edu discount and without VAT is now £158! That makes going 1:1 very realistic. Add Microsofts Office 365 for Word, Excel Powerpoint on iPad, some garage band and all the many other useful apps you have a compelling option.

[Arthur]

More impressed that an iPad Mini 1 with Edu discount and without VAT is now £158! That makes going 1:1 very realistic.

With its aging A5 processor, 512MB RAM and 1024x768 screen, is the original iPad mini a wise purchase considering that the iPad mini 2 is an extra £32?

 

I know you would be able to get more iPads for your money, but thinking long term it may not be such a good idea.

 

http://store.apple.com/uk-edu/ipad/compare

 

------------------------------------------
                     Price    Difference*
------------------------------------------
16GB iPad mini        £159

16GB iPad mini 2      £191     + £32
32GB iPad mini 2      £223     + £32

16GB iPad mini 3      £255     + £32
64GB iPad mini 3      £319     + £64
128GB iPad mini 3     £383     + £64

 

* Compared to preceding model

[ZeroHour]

That screen res powered by a laptop gpu rofl.

[3s-gtech]

Yeah, I do question the choise of GPU in the iMac. The M290X is good, but 14.7 million pixels need some serious hardware to push around in any sort of 3D application (let's be honest, a full fat GTX980 can't do that) and a 2GB frame buffer can be swamped at 1080P. Should be a lovely thing to work on though, for 2D work and media consumption.

 

The cheapest Mac Mini looks like it could be a real winner. We would certainly look to it for our Mac suites - we don't need much power for what we do.

[Arthur]

The cheapest Mac Mini looks like it could be a real winner.

Apart from the non-upgradeable RAM.

 

www.macworld.co.uk/review/mac-desktops/mac-mini-2014-review-new-features-spec-3474809

 

The low-end version, while attractively priced, offers very basic specs, just 4GB RAM (like the MacBook Air does). However, the memory is upgradable at point of purchase so we recommend opting for at least 8GB RAM for another £80. Of course if you are spending another £80 you might as well go the whole hog and get the 2.6GHz Mac mini that comes with 8GB RAM and will only cost you another £90 on top of the £70 for RAM. On this entry level model you could pay £240 extra to get 16GB RAM, but this is almost double the price of the Mac mini to start with and is probably a false economy, but we'll find out more when we get to spend more time with one.

 

The 2.6GHz and 2.6GHz versions of the Mac mini come with 8GB RAM as standard, upgradable to 16GB for £160.

 

You can't upgrade this RAM yourself like you used to be able to.

 

Previously the Mac mini was popular because it had easy to access memory – so you could add more RAM if you wanted to. Unfortunately the new Mac mini will not be this flexible, Apple has told us you will not be able to add more RAM after purchase as you could previously.

 

Apple has gone to some lengths to make it harder to get into the Mac mini - despite the box not having changed Apple has removed the access point from the bottom, deliberately changing the bottom of the unit so that users can not get to RAM.

 

As a result it would seem that the user upgrade possibilities are gone, despite the fact that there is extra space for drive inside. Apple told us you can configure the Mac mini on the store to have two drives but it still will not be user upgradable at a later date.

 

Regarding there being no user upgradeable RAM Apple referred to it’s: “Great memory compression tech," that the RAM benefits from.

[3s-gtech]

Typical. It should be okay-ish with 4GB, but that is hobbling it for the sake of it. I'd pop an SSD in anyway (which I imagine is a total swine, not tried on our existing ones yet).

[mac_shinobi]

Typical. It should be okay-ish with 4GB, but that is hobbling it for the sake of it. I'd pop an SSD in anyway (which I imagine is a total swine, not tried on our existing ones yet).

 

2012 mac mini's ?

[3s-gtech]

We have four late 2011(?) Sandy Bridge unibody ones, and a couple of older Core 2 ones. All been cracking, but need SSDs now.

[mac_shinobi]

We have four late 2011(?) Sandy Bridge unibody ones, and a couple of older Core 2 ones. All been cracking, but need SSDs now.

 

I have the 2.5ghz 2011 one with 4gb ram and the AMD gpu. Like you said could do with upgrading to an ssd , more ram etc

[Arthur]

I'd pop an SSD in anyway

Me too! It's a shame about the warranty situation on the new model though.

 

 

Can Apple get away with that under UK or EU law?

[Pottsey]

That screen res powered by a laptop gpu rofl.

A lot of laptop and mobile GPUs are pretty impressive now. The mobiles GPU's often play games/apps at higher resolutions then your average PC and still have advanced feature like FSAA. The average Ipad resolution is higher then the average desktop resolution. The A8X GPU is amazing for its size and power drain.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Pottsey

[localzuk]

Me too! It's a shame about the warranty situation on the new model though.

 

 

Can Apple get away with that under UK or EU law?

 

Yeah, they can. If they seal a box and say "no fiddling" they are entitled to say "fiddle and no warranty", just like with a set top box or TV.

[Driftingashore]

Well I suppose once the iFixit teardown comes in we'll see if there are any protections aside from any pentalobe screws. If not, just keep the old drives handy and swap them back in if the machines become defective and need to be serviced. So long as you don't damage anything on the way in/out they'll never know.

[localzuk]

Well I suppose once the iFixit teardown comes in we'll see if there are any protections aside from any pentalobe screws. If not, just keep the old drives handy and swap them back in if the machines become defective and need to be serviced. So long as you don't damage anything on the way in/out they'll never know.

 

That'd be fraud...

[Driftingashore]

You wouldn't necessarily have to lie - just not be forthcoming with the truth. So long as the hardware failure wasn't caused by botching the HD swap I have no moral opposition to this, and the worst that's likely to happen is that whoever services the machine spots something amiss and refuses to service under warranty. Perhaps I'm an outlaw playing fast and loose. Don't tell me I'm not.

[JRowley]

Sigh why 5K, the rest of the industry is targeting 4K, I know Apple have this thing about being different but surely when an entire industry targets 4K and 8K as goals you don't try and go against that. What's the likelihood of people producing 5K content over 4K which is rapidly going to become the standard?

[3s-gtech]

It does actually make sense. If the iMac is being used to work on/edit 4K footage, you'd want to do this with a 1:1 pixel ratio, which would not be possible with a 4K screen (I don't think you can fullscreen the applications you'd be using!) As such, it's well targeted at people who would be doing this.

[JRowley]

It does actually make sense. If the iMac is being used to work on/edit 4K footage, you'd want to do this with a 1:1 pixel ratio, which would not be possible with a 4K screen (I don't think you can fullscreen the applications you'd be using!) As such, it's well targeted at people who would be doing this.

 

Not really, anyone who would actually be doing this would do so on a second screen which would display the content in it's full native resolution. No one produces video with one screen these days, they claim it leaves enough room for tools around the edge, but that's not how most high end video authoring software is laid out. You've got substantially more panels and tools that you need to be displayed at almost all times. You simply wouldn't fit the content natively in the space on a 5K screen.

[Norphy]

Sigh why 5K, the rest of the industry is targeting 4K, I know Apple have this thing about being different but surely when an entire industry targets 4K and 8K as goals you don't try and go against that. What's the likelihood of people producing 5K content over 4K which is rapidly going to become the standard?

 

Because the previous 27" iMac used a 2560x1440 screen. Apple are following their "retina" policy and doubling the amount of pixels in both directions, therefore getting 5120x2880 pixels.

 

And since when has the resolution that videos are being produced at had anything to do with computer screen resolutions? Having a "5k" screen won't prevent you from generating video at "4k". Or 1080p, 720p, 576i, 480i or 320x240 for that matter.

 

Apple aren't the first to announce a panel running at that resolution either. Dell are selling one too: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8496/dell-previews-27inch-5k-ultrasharp-monitor-5120x2880

Edited October 20, 2014 by Norphy

[JRowley]

Because the previous 27" iMac used a 2560x1440 screen. Apple are following their "retina" policy and doubling the amount of pixels in both directions, therefore getting 5120x2880 pixels.

 

And since when has the resolution that videos are being produced at had anything to do with computer screen resolutions? Having a "5k" screen won't prevent you from generating video at "4k". Or 1080p, 720p, 576i, 480i or 320x240 for that matter.

 

It hasn't except that you ideally want to be viewing things in their native resolution, if you watch a 1080p video on a 5k screen then you are effectively stretching that video to fit your resolution. The same would be true if you were viewing a 4k video on a 5k screen. Which is why watching a 320p video in full screen on a 1080p monitor looks terrible.

 

I never mentioned that you couldn't produce different sized videos, there isn't any limitation on that...

[furby]

It's pretty impressive that Apple are making a 5k computer the same price as the Dell monitor.

 

Has anyone seen one (iMac) in real life yet?

[Pottsey]

It hasn't except that you ideally want to be viewing things in their native resolution, if you watch a 1080p video on a 5k screen then you are effectively stretching that video to fit your resolution. The same would be true if you were viewing a 4k video on a 5k screen. Which is why watching a 320p video in full screen on a 1080p monitor looks terrible.

 

I never mentioned that you couldn't produce different sized videos, there isn't any limitation on that...

A 320p video on a 1080p screen looks terrible more to do with stretching 320p over 27”+ then not being at a native resolution. I run 1080p video on a 2560x1440 screen and never have problems so I will be very surprised if anyone can notice a difference between 4k video on a 5k screen against a 4k video on a 4k screen at 27”. As long as some smart GPU processing is being used stretching to a higher resolution isn’t that bad anymore and often makes the video better. Even 320p can be improved massively with GPU processing on higher res screens over native. Its been a long time since we needed to run video matching native resolution.

 

100” screens might be another story but at 27” any difference will be too small for the eye to see.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Pottsey

[JRowley]

A 320p video on a 1080p screen looks terrible more to do with stretching 320p over 27”+ then not being at a native resolution. I run 1080p video on a 2560x1440 screen and never have problems so I will be very surprised if anyone can notice a difference between 4k video on a 5k screen against a 4k video on a 4k screen at 27”. As long as some smart GPU processing is being used scratching to a higher resolutions isn’t that bad anymore. Even 320p can be improved massively with GPU processing on higher res screens.

 

100” screens might be another story but at 27” any difference will be too small for the eye to see.

 

I know, it was just an example the likely visible difference isn't going to be massive by any means. The main point was just that they were being different for very little legitimate reasons, more workspace when working on 4k native content being the primary one cited by Apple which as I mentioned is just nonsense.

 

I thought we had gotten away from all of this when Apple finally buckled and went to standard resolutions for their mobile devices, but that isn't really the case here.